Single-Center Review of Appropriateness and Utilization of Upper Endoscopy in Dyspepsia in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We compared real-world practice of dyspepsia management to the new American College of Gastroenterology (ACG)/Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) guidelines 2017. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, observational study using administrative data to include patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for dyspepsia. Results: Out of 122 EGDs, only 30 (24.5%) were deemed appropriate per guidelines. Only 13 (14.1%) patients had undergone both Helicobacter pylori ( H. pylori ) test and treat and adequate proton pump inhibitor (PPI) before undergoing endoscopy. Nineteen (15.5%) patients had alarm symptoms (weight loss, melena and early satiety). Positivity rate of H. pylori was 36.3%, but only half completed treatment. Twenty-six patients (21.3%) had abnormalities on endoscopy, most commonly gastritis. There were no cases of gastric/esophageal cancer. Conclusions: The rate of inappropriate upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is higher than the existing literature, likely because of the stricter use of EGD in patients < 60 years. Only one in eight patients underwent the recommended workup before undergoing endoscopy. Gastroenterol Res. 2021;14(2):81-86 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/gr1370
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".